• Moderators, please send me a PM if you are unable to access mod permissions. Thanks, Habsy.

OT: The News Thread

You are MASSIVELY paranoid about Iran and the muslims. I SHUDDER at the though of how you teach modern history in your class.

You are probably like Rodney Dangerfield's history prof Sam Kinison.

[video=youtube;8bfgrj_62-Y]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8bfgrj_62-Y[/video]
 
theREALkoreaboy said:
just thought i'd link this so people could innundate us with "its just for peaceful civilian electricity production, stupid" posts...

http://www.cnn.com/2012/01/09/world/meast/iran-nuclear/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

(which would be yet more examples of "rah rah iran, the US sucks" sentiment that is so prevalent, yet so denied over here)
Click to expand...

The salient points in the article?

"The IAEA can confirm that Iran has started the production of uranium enriched up to 20%"
Click to expand...

A nuclear warhead typically requires ~90% enrichment. 20% would be barely suitable for a "dirty bomb". You really think Iran is going to all this trouble just to produce a 'dirty bomb' that may or may not even be able to achieve critical mass?

"All nuclear material in the facility remains under the agency's containment and surveillance."
Click to expand...

So....the IAEA has full access to the the facility and is monitoring them (as well they should)

We've been over this before. As a signer of the NPT, Iran has the legal right to develop non weaponized nuclear technology. They're bound by the restrictions in that agreement, including monitoring and international oversight. The moment they appear to be weaponizing, fire as many tomahawks at them as you want. Until then though, they're simply exercising their rights under international law. However detestable their government is, they have the right to develop nuclear technology for the benefit of their country.

Your paranoia is ridiculous, get help.
 
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/01/09/panetta-admits-iran-not-developing-nukes/

U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta let slip on Sunday the big open secret that Washington war hawks don’t want widely known: Iran is not developing nuclear weapons.

Appearing on CBS’s Face the Nation on Sunday, Panetta admitted that despite all the rhetoric, Iran is not pursuing the ability to split atoms with weapons, saying it is instead pursuing “a nuclear capability.”

That “capability” falls in line with what Iran has said for years: that it is developing nuclear energy facilities, not nuclear weapons.

“I think the pressure of the sanctions, the diplomatic pressures from everywhere, Europe, the United States, elsewhere, it’s working to put pressure on them,” Panetta explained on Sunday. “To make them understand that they cannot continue to do what they’re doing. Are they trying to develop a nuclear weapon? No. But we know that they’re trying to develop a nuclear capability, and that’s what concerns us. And our red line to Iran is, do not develop a nuclear weapon. That’s a red line for us.”
Click to expand...
 
It still boggles my mind as to how an individual could have remained oblivious as to the obvious racial implications of tossing a banana at a black athlete.

The man who touched off a national furor when he threw a banana at a black NHL player during an exhibition game has been fined $200.

Christopher Moorhouse, 26, was not on hand in the London, Ont. courtroom where his lawyer entered a guilty plea on his behalf on Monday.

Defence lawyer Faisal Joseph could not immediately be reached for comment, but had previously called for leniency in a case he contended had been blown far out of proportion.

Joseph said Moorhouse was oblivious to the racial connotations of throwing a banana when he lobbed the fruit at Philadelphia Flyers' forward Wayne Simmonds on Sept. 22.

Moorhouse was caught up in the drama of a tense overtime shootout between the Flyers and his favourite team, the Detroit Red Wings, he said. Simmonds had just forced the game into overtime with a third-period goal and was approaching Detroit goalie Jordan Pearce to try and clinch the match at London's John Labatt Centre. Detroit went on to win the pre-season game 4-3.

Moorhouse's sole intention was to prevent Simmonds from scoring against his favourite hockey team, Joseph said.

“He was horrified when he saw the implications a day later as to how it had come out, and he said to me, ‘if I had an apple or an orange, I would have thrown that out onto the ice,“’ Joseph previously told the Canadian Press. “I did not realize the significance.“’

The incident touched off widespread controversy, drawing a sharp condemnation from the National Hockey League and prompting the city of London to issue an apology on behalf of its citizens.

While Simmonds himself shrugged off the affair, NHL Commissioner Gary Bettman roundly criticized the move the morning after the game.

“The obviously stupid and ignorant action by one individual is in no way representative of our fans or the people of London, Ontario,” he said.

Despite the high profile of the incident, London police chief Brad Duncan said the offence was not serious enough to be considered a hate crime or even merit a charge of mischief.

“You have to demonstrate and be motivated by hatred,” he told a news conference shortly after the game. “Although the banana did hit the ice, it did not interfere with the play so it didn't meet the mischief threshold.”

Moorhouse's sentence falls well short of the maximum $2,000 fine he could have faced if he had been convicted of the charge.
Click to expand...

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/sports/hockey/tossing-banana-at-nhls-wayne-simmonds-nets-man-200-fine/article2295973/

One thing seems to be for certain though: Mr. Moorhouse will think twice in the future before deciding to lob any type of fruit onto the playing surface at any upcoming sporting events.
 
if he threw a banana, a pineapple, an orange as well...i might believe him.... but if you had to pick one random piece of fruit to throw (without it being racist) you would think it would be an apple or orange or another ball-like fruit
 
Well, onto some Canadian politics. One of the NDP MP's elected in the "orange wave" in Quebec has crossed the floor to the Liberals:

Story:

OTTAWA - Quebec NDP MP Lise St-Denis announced Tuesday she’s crossing the floor to the Liberals.

The MP for the riding of Saint-Maurice—Champlain said the Liberal direction on social policy, job creation and the environment is “able to generate hope for the people living in my riding.”

“This decision has been made serenely,” she said.

She made the announcement in Ottawa flanked by Liberal interim leader Bob Rae and Quebec MP Denis Coderre.
Click to expand...
Guess the NDP caucus is already starting to crack under their new leadership. Still a bullshit move though, just like all the other floor crossings. It's generally true with others who've defected in the past, but pretty much any NDP MP elected from Quebec in the last election wasn't elected because of themselves, but because of the "NDP" beside their name. There should really be a rule that any MP who crosses the floor to another party should be subject to a by-election before doing so.
 
Smart move by that MP.....NDP wont get elected next time in QC....liberals might though. Risky, but a good move IMO.

I also have no issue with crossing the floor.
 
I have no issues with people crossing the floor, but like GM stated at minimum there should be an immediate by-election where the sitting MP is forced to run again under the banner of their new party.
 
crossing the floor at almost any time is ratty, ratty, ratty. i hate it. you were almost certainly elected because of the banner you ran under, not for YOU personally. when you cross the floor you basically invalidate the democratic choice made. it sucks.
 
LeafGm said:
There should really be a rule that any MP who crosses the floor to another party should be subject to a by-election before doing so.
Click to expand...

Depends on when it happens. I think if the floor change happens within a year of the last election win, no by-election should be required. It's a lot of money to hold a by-election, and that waste should be contained.
Beyond a year, then yes, there should be a by-election.
 
theREALkoreaboy said:
when you cross the floor you basically invalidate the democratic choice made.
Click to expand...

Ridiculous.
Did you read her reasons?
Champlain said the Liberal direction on social policy, job creation and the environment is “able to generate hope for the people living in my riding.”

“This decision has been made serenely,” she said.
Click to expand...
If the party she ran under is not doing the best thing for her riding, (ie: the people who voted for her), and one of the other parties is claiming to do more, then she should cross the floor.
That's far more supportive of the "democratic choice made" then having a party woo in votes then forget those who helped them win.
 
It's a weird issue.


Thinking personally, I don't think either my MPP or MP (both of whom I voted for) got my vote on personal merit. I've met them both, know the MP relatively well, but at the end of the day I'm not sure I'd vote for either one of them again if they switched parties. I'd certainly feel my vote was invalidated if they switched parties. I might feel different in a system like the US where the vote for a representative (or congressman/senator) is divorced from the vote for head of state.
 
I think getting up in arms over this kind of shows the wrong focus from a political thought stand point.

You should be voting for the best individual to represent your riding, not for the team they play for. If you felt that person was the best representative for your riding when you voted for them, the colour on their riding office window shouldn't change that. If you're voting for the team instead of the person, you're a partisan muppet.
 
MindzEye said:
I think getting up in arms over this kind of shows the wrong focus from a political thought stand point.

You should be voting for the best individual to represent your riding, not for the team they play for. If you felt that person was the best representative for your riding when you voted for them, the colour on their riding office window shouldn't change that. If you're voting for the team instead of the person, you're a partisan muppet.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but this is kind of irrelevant.

A good friend of mine commonly states the above every election period and the rest of our collective has to remind him that, while his point is well-taken, it doesn't reflect reality. Whether people should vote for someone who is the best individual fit in the riding is not what is of relevance here. It's the fact that they do vote for the party brand at least eighty percent of the time (at least most normal polling numbers show four out of five people vote by party affiliation) that matters. So when you have someone who ran under the banner of the NDP and then chooses to defect to the Liberals, people are going to be pretty upset because they clearly wanted to be represented by a Dipper.

That's why the notion of an automatic by-election is so attractive. It gives the people an opportunity to exercise their democratic right in response to one of their MP's/MPP's sand-bagging them.
 
MindzEye said:
I think getting up in arms over this kind of shows the wrong focus from a political thought stand point.

You should be voting for the best individual to represent your riding, not for the team they play for. If you felt that person was the best representative for your riding when you voted for them, the colour on their riding office window shouldn't change that. If you're voting for the team instead of the person, you're a partisan muppet.
Click to expand...

It's sort of a chicken and egg thing. I have trouble voting for an individual as opposed to their party because I have ZERO confidence that they'll vote against party lines, or switch parties for moral and logical reasons.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top